Capability Index of Government Agencies to Support Entry to Thailand 4.0

Main Article Content

อินทกะ พิริยะกุล [Intaka Piriyakul] ชวัลลักษณ์ คุณาธิกรกิจ [Chawanrat Kunathikornkit] สุธารัตน์ จุ้ยเจริญ [Sutarat Juicharoen] ระพีพรรณ พิริยะกุล [Rapepun Piriyakul]


Lack of Key Performance Success Indicator impacts the stimulation of the organizational operation management. Therefore, this research aimed to explore the direct and indirect supportive information to formulated Thailand 4.0 index (TI4) with respect only to the government agencies supporting business rituals. The quantitative and qualitative approaches were integrated to the study of the related features on several dimensions.  Finally, the results of the study could provide a guideline on the indexing of Thailand 4.0 at the micro level and the macro level. The micro level index aimed to be the self-assessment index on the capacity of ICT infrastructure while the macro index as e-government standard index could be used to compare with other countries.


Article Details

How to Cite
[Intaka Piriyakul]อ. พ., [Chawanrat Kunathikornkit]ช. ค., [Sutarat Juicharoen]ส. จ., & [Rapepun Piriyakul]ร. พ. (2019). Capability Index of Government Agencies to Support Entry to Thailand 4.0. Journal of Business, Economics and Communications, 14(2), 109-124. Retrieved from
บทความวิจัย (Research article)


1. Banker, R. D., Potter, G. and Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures. Accounting Review, 75(1), 65-92.

2. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

3. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351-370.

4. Blumler, J. G. and Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

5. Charutwinyo, C. (2016). The analysis of networked readiness inbok model. Journal of Business, Economics and Communications, 13(2), 73-91.

6. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. and Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange theory. UK: Oxford University Press.

7. Davis, F. D, Bagozzi, P. R. and Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.

8. Department of Industrial Promotion. (2017). Business adaptation 4.0. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from

9. Eccles, R. G. and Pyburn, P. J. (1992). Creating a comprehensive system to measure Performance. Management Accounting (USA), 74(4), 41-44.

10. Hawawini, G. and Viallet, C. (2002). Finance for executives (2nd ed.). New York: Thomson South-Western.

11. Helfat, C. E. and Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resourcebased view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.

12. Horvat, D. and Trojak, N. (2013). Learning organization in new economy. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 9, 183-195.

13. Jiyong, K. (2013). Effects of reputation and website quality on online consumers' emotion, received risk and purchase intension. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(2), 33-56.

14. Kaplan, R. S. and Anderson, S. R. (2007). Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. Boston: HBS.

15. King Prajadhipok's Institute. (2016). Report of the King Prajadhipok's Institute. Bankok: King Prajadhipok's Institute.

16. Makhija, N., Brady-Amoon, P., Dixit, V. and Jonathan, D. (2012). Social Justice: Pushing Past Boundaries in Graduate Training. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 4(2), 85-97.

17. National Statistical Office. (2016). Report of National Statistical Office. Bangkok: National Statistical Office.

18. Penrose, E. (1980). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

19. Sherif, K., Hoffman, J. and Thomas, B. (2006). Can technology build organizational social capital: The case of a global IT consulting firm. Information and Management, 43(7), 795-804.

20. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.

21. Termpittayapaisith, A. (2013). The Next Generation of Thai Industry. Bangkok: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB).

22. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2018). Index of EGDI compared with Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. New York: Two UN Plaza-Room DC2-1712.

23. Vashakmadze, T. (2008). Calculating equity risk premium for Russian market – An empirical analysis. Global Academy Society Journal: Social Science Insight, 1(5), 4-15.

24. Yoshino, N. and Sakakibara, E. (2015). The current sate of the Japanese economy and remedies. Asian Economic Papers, 1(2), 110-126.